>Time is the only thing we will never be able to make more of. It is The Ultimate Resource, as Julian Simon points out. This makes Bitcoin the ultimate form of money because its issuance is directly linked to the ultimate resource of our universe: time.
All things equal, BTC has a limited supply, making it unusable as a currency (but great as a deflationary store of value). I suppose the definition of "money" is less specific than "currency," but this notion of "money" goes contrary to the nomenclature of the human realm. Yes, technically anything that is tradable is "money," but then the term becomes rather meaningless.
Money must be backed by a creative asset, such as an orchard or labor or technology. Time alone a currency does not make.
You should read the Bitcoin Standard or Layered Money to get a sense of what money is and how your notions are quite far from the truth, although delivered with feverish confidence.
BTC is infinitely divisible, and so can be used as currency. Can you give an example where its capped supply would cause an issue?
Bitcoin is backed by proof of work. Money backed by entities are liabilities, which is a bug and not a feature of fiat money. I really suggest thinking about this for a lot longer.
I do not disagree that BTC is a great store of value, I disagree that it is a "currency." Which is usually what the term "money" denotes.
BTC in particular has long transaction verification times that are growing longer.
>Can you give an example where its capped supply would cause an issue?
To be useful as a day-to-day currency there needs to be a balance between inflation and value.
Currency works best when people are not encouraged to hoard it, because then the economic incentive of using money is there.
If I hold on to a dollar, in <30 years it will have about half that spending power at current inflationary momentum. Thus, it is more prudent to spend the currency on assets or exchange them for necessities. If the currency itself increases in value as time goes on, the incentive to exchange it for goods and services is actually not there.
Currency comes from the word current meaning flow. Hoarding something is the opposite of letting things flow.
>BTC is infinitely divisible, and so can be used as currency.
BTC is not "infinitely divisible." There is a smallest unit of BTC known as a satoshi, and transaction fees (the amount you must include to incentivize miners to actually put your transaction into a block) is already greater than the amount of BTC stored in some addresses.
>Money backed by entities are liabilities, which is a bug and not a feature of fiat money.
It may be the case that there are unsavory entities between the creative asset and the actual printed bill, but currency is at its basis rooted in the creative yield of branch or brain.
Money is defined as (1) a store of value, (2) a medium of exchange, and (3) a unit of account.
Bitcoin is still in its infancy phase tackling problem (1). (2) Will come once enough people value it to accept it as money, which hasn't happened yet. (3) is further still.
You claim we should buy goods and services because otherwise our hard-spent time will disappear.
I claim this is not the natural order of things, only what inflationists want you to believe to justify what is a unilateral tax and re-distribution of wealth (similar to the dilution that occurs in fund-raising). In a free market, we should buy these things because we need them and want them enough to exchange our hard-earned money for them, not because of the fear that our previous work/stored energy is slipping away.
The things you wouldn't buy would be things you wouldn't need. Perhaps we can return to a state where we don't spend money we don't have on status symbols and asset-hoarding. That, plus funding wars, are among the results of putting money supply in government hands. Bitcoin actually provides a way out of this mess.
> BTC is not "infinitely divisible."
If it were to become significantly more valuable, sub-Satoshi denominations will be added.
That's correct right now, but it would not be too controversial to divide up sats into something smaller, as no one's quantity related to the total limit would change. Lightning supports smaller units that get rounded out at settlement.
Dividing up a pie into smaller and smaller slices doesn't increase the amount of pie. It just lets people who haven't already taken a slice fight over ever smaller scraps.
All things equal, BTC has a limited supply, making it unusable as a currency (but great as a deflationary store of value). I suppose the definition of "money" is less specific than "currency," but this notion of "money" goes contrary to the nomenclature of the human realm. Yes, technically anything that is tradable is "money," but then the term becomes rather meaningless.
Money must be backed by a creative asset, such as an orchard or labor or technology. Time alone a currency does not make.